Sustainability in higher education curricula: challenges and choices

1. By Paul Prinsloo
Background image from Stoffberg &
Prinsloo, 2009. Climate change. A guide for
corporates. Unisa Press & Trialogue,
Pretoria. Image ©Shutterstock

2. 2
Overview of the
presentation
• The issue is no longer should we, but how…
• Sharing some points of departure
• Challenges inherent in the scientific
discourses and media representations of
issues in sustainability; challenges in
developing curricula addressing sustainability
issues, and choosing an appropriate
pedagogy
• (In)conclusions

3. 3
The issue is no longer
should we, but how…
• In 2008 Unisa signs the United Nations Global
Compact (UNGC) – second university in Africa
and the first in South Africa
• Early 2009 Unisa’s council decides to develop a
compulsory separate module on issues of
ethics, accountability and corporate citizenship
• At the end: Not separate but embedded
• Unisa Curriculum Policy (2009) – Statement on
graduateness

4. 4
Ten UNGC principles covering four areas: human
rights, labour standards, the environment and anti-
corruption.
United Nations Global
Compact (UNGC)Principles
Principle 7: Businesses should support a
precautionary approach to environmental challenges
Principle 8: Undertake initiatives to promote greater
environmental responsibility
Principle 9: encourage the development and
diffusion of environmentally friendly technologies

5. 5
Unisa graduates
(i) are independent, resilient, responsible and
caring citizens who are able to fulfil and serve in
multiple roles in their immediate and future local,
national and global communities
(ii) have a critical understanding of their location
on the African continent with its histories, challenges
and potential in relation to globally diverse contexts
Unisa Statement on
Graduateness (2010/2012)

6. 6
Unisa Statement on
Graduateness (2010) (cont.)
(iii) are able to critically analyse and evaluate the
credibility and usefulness of information and data
from multiple sources in a globalised world with its
ever increasing information and data flows and
competing worldviews
(iv) know how to apply their discipline-specific
knowledges competently, ethically and creatively to
solve real-life problems
(v) are critically aware of their own learning and
developmental needs and future potential

7. 7
Therefore…
The issue is no longer ‘if’ we should
address sustainability, but how,
how far, by whom, how deep, what
to include on which level and how
to assess graduate literacy in
sustainability…

8. 8
1. Environmental damage and the impacts of climate change
are not equally distributed
2. These changes will not affect all people equally
3. Individuals and groups of peoples’ vulnerability is embedded
in social-political realities and relations
4. Environmental changes are often mutually constitutive,
exponential, non-linear and unpredictable (unknown
unknowns)
5. Interventions to address or intervene may themselves
exacerbate, maintain and increase inequalities
6. The discourses of sustainability are where the local and
global meets
Some points of
departure

9. 9
Mapping some of the
challenges
• The issue is not should we, but how…
• Some points of departure
• Challenges in the scientific discourses and
media representations of issues in
sustainability; challenges in developing
curricula addressing sustainability issues,
and choosing an appropriate pedagogy

10. 10
Challenges in the
sustainability discourse
• The meta or grand narratives of the day
• Multi, inter and transdisciplinary
• Sustainability as a ‘wicked’ problem
• Technical and scientific terminology
concepts, claims and counter-claims
• The claim makers and those authorised to
speak
• The political nature of evidence

11. 11
Mapping (some of) the meta or
grand narratives of the day
1. Rampant individualism and predatory capitalism (Giroux
2003). Are our graduates nothing more than hominems
economicus (Mintzberg, Simons & Basu,2002)?
2. Higher education as ‘Academies of the apocalypse’
(James, 2009) or speaking truth to power? Have we sold
out to the highest bidder? (Giroux 2003)
3. Do we prepare students for complex or supercomplex
world (Barnett 2000)?
4. The scientific discourse are only for the selected few – the
need for interlocutors

12. 12
Geo-political power
relations Gender
Culture
Legal
Ideology
Race
The politics of evidence
Religion
Economic power relations
Environmental
Technology
Future
Present
Past
Mapping the discourses
surrounding sustainability
Language

13. 13
Sustainability as wicked
problem
Rittel and Webber (1973), Conklin (2006) …
• The problem is not understood until after the formulation
of a solution. • Solutions are not right
or wrong.
• Every wicked problem
is essentially novel and
unique and once-off
• Wicked problems have
no given alternative
solutions
http://chrisriedy.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/tangle_2560x1440.jpg?w=492&h=276

14. 14
http://www.hlswatch.com/wp-
content/uploads/2010/07/Cynefin-Adapted.jpg
The Cynefin framework
(Snowden & Boone, 2007)

15. 15
• Multi, inter and transdisciplinary
• Sustainability as a ‘wicked’ problem
• Technical and scientific terminology
concepts, claims and counter-claims
• The claim makers and those authorised to
speak
• The political nature of evidence

16. 16
Sustainability
Whose science do you
believe? (Brewer & Ley,
2013)
• The credibility of the
messenger
• The role of trust
• Who do we trust/believe?
• News media sources
• Science magazines,
science websites, science
television
• Academic scientists
Media representations of
outlier views (Boykoff, 2013)
• Alarmists, global warming
fundamentalists versus contrarians,
skeptics, denialists
• Claim makers versus authorised
speakers
• The involvement of those with
vested interests such as oil
companies, the military, etc
• The role of ideology
• The role of the media – “the media
don’t tell people what to think, but
they tell them what to think about”
Mass communication and public understanding of environmental
problems – Stamm, Clark & Eblacas, 2000
Who/what shall
we believe?

17. 17
Topic on YouTube (31 July 2013) Number of results
Fracking is safe 8,890
Fracking is bad 52,000
Fracking is good 52,600
Fracking is dangerous 5,830
Environmental impact of fracking 7,140
Water safety and fracking 217,000
Safe fracking 246,000
Hydraulic fracturing 42,200
Hydraulic fracturing water on fire 7,960
Hydraulic fracturing lies 3,300
YouTube and hydraulic
fracturing (fracking)

18. 18
Topic on YouTube (29 July 2013) Number of results
Climate change 1,680,000
Climate change is a hoax 240,000
Climate change is bullshit 4,020,000
Climate change is real 322,000
Climate change is fake 4,000,000
Climate change impacts 52,000
Climate change is natural 245,000
Climate change is a myth 82,200
Climate change is a fact 296,000
Climate change: fact or fiction 127,000
YouTube and
climate change

19. 19
12, 600,000 results
(on 31 July 2013)
The plot thickens: the
Pacific Northwest tree
octopus
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8354/8330186
402_534713c027_z.jpg
http://ahklrox.weebly.com/uploads/1/1/9/8/11
989255/6118462.jpg?342

20. 20
Recapping our
journey so far
• The issue is not should we, but how…
• Some points of departure
• Challenges in the scientific discourses and
media representations of issues in
sustainability; challenges in developing
curricula addressing sustainability issues,
and choosing an appropriate pedagogy

21. 21
Pertinent curriculum
choices in addressing
climate change
1. A separate module/course or embedded across the
curricula?
2. What does sustainability literacy include/exclude?
When will we consider a graduate to be literate? Is
sustainability literacy enough?
3. Are our faculty ready? Are our students ready?
4. When does teaching about sustainability become
indoctrination? (Ashley, 2005)

22. Context/
epistemologies/
ontologies of
the discipline/
programme
Context/
epistemologies/
ontologies of
the institution/
management/
department
Personal
contexts and
epistemologies/
ontologies of
students –
capital/ habitus
Personal
contexts and
epistemologies/
ontologies of
lecturers/
authors/
curriculum
team
The
sustainability
discourse –
evidence/
contestations
Macro/global PESTEL developments/shifts
Local application context - PESTEL developments/shifts
The curriculum as
contact zone…

23. 23
Armchair pontificators are persons “who critique but who do
not have the motivation or skills to help solve societal problems”
(Rowe 2002) versus positive change agents who
• cope effectively with change, ambiguity, uncertainty
• care about societal problems and solutions
• envision and are willing to help create positive scenarios for
the future,
• experience a strengthened political efficiency, and know how to
effectively implement change (Rowe 2002).

24. 24
Characteristics of change
agents
Svanström, Lozano-García and Rowe (2008)
1. An understanding of the ethical responsibility, towards present and
future generations
2. A knowledge of contemporary issues
3. An understanding of the carrying capacity of ecosystems, in order to
sustain human life on earth
4. An understanding of social responsibility as a future professional and
as a citizen
5. An understanding of the impact that human activities have on the
planet, regarding sustainable and unsustainable resources
appropriation
6. Knowledge of global trends that impact the life quality of present and
future generations

25. 25
Recapping our
journey so far
• The issue is not should we, but how…
• Some points of departure
• Challenges in the scientific discourses and
media representations of issues in
sustainability; challenges in developing
curricula addressing sustainability issues,
and choosing an appropriate pedagogy

26. 26
Research by Stamm,
Clark and Eblecas (2000)
COVERAGE UNDERSTANDING ACTION

27. 27
The problem-path model
(Stamm et al 2000)
Stage 0
Unaware of
situation
Stage 1
Heard about
situation, but
can’t say if it
is a problem
or not
Stage 2a
Situation is
NOT a
problem
Stage 2b
Situation IS
a problem
Stage 3
Thinking
about
solutions
Stage 4
Identification
of solutions

28. 28
5
Critique of the
problem-path model
Stage 0
Unaware of
situation
Stage 1
Heard about
situation, but
can’t say if it
is a problem
or not
Stage 2a
Situation is
NOT a
problem
Stage 2b
Situation IS
a problem
Stage 3
Thinking
about
solutions
Stage 4
Identification
of solutions
Disengagement

29. 29 2
A future-oriented
impact model
Stage 0
Unaware of
situation
Stage 1
Heard about
situation, but
can’t say if it
is a problem
of not
Stage 2a
Situation is
NOT a
problem
Stage 2b
Situation IS
a problem
Disengagement
Stage 3
Thinking
about
solutions
Stage 4
Identifi-
cation of
solutions
Stage 5
ACTION
Armchair
pontificators
Change
agents

30. 30
Recapping our
journey
• The issue is not should we, but how…
• Some points of departure
• Mapping some of the challenges e.g.
challenges in the scientific discourses and
media representations of issues in
sustainability; challenges in developing
curricula addressing sustainability issues,
and choosing an appropriate pedagogy

31. 31
If not now, when, and
who?
“the media don’t tell people what to think,
but they tell them what to think about”
(Boykoff, 2013)
Will higher education take up the challenge
to empower students to engage, question,
explore and disrupt the meta-narratives of
consumerism and selfishness?

32. 32
“We’re the first generation that
has had the power to destroy the
planet. Ignoring that risk can only
be described as reckless”
Sir Nicholas Stern
.

33. Thank you
Dr Paul Prinsloo
Directorate: Curriculum and Learning Development
(DCLD)
University of South Africa
prinsp@unisa.ac.za
Twitter: @14prinsp
http://opendistanceteachingandlearning.wordpress.com
Background image from Stoffberg &
Prinsloo, 2009. Climate change. A guide for
corporates. Unisa Press & Trialogue,
Pretoria. Image ©Shutterstock

34. 34
• The images in the headers are copyrighted to
Unisa
• The copyright of the images used in the
presentation is acknowledged does not belong
to the author
• This presentation is licensed under a Creative
Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Copyright

35. 35
Ashley, M. (2005). Tensions between indoctrination and the development of judgement: the case
against early closure. Environmental Education Research, 11(2),187–197.
Barnett, R. (2000). University knowledge in an age of supercomplexity. Higher Education, 40, 409 —
422.
Boykoff. M.T. (2013). Public enemy no. 1?: Understanding media representations of outlier views on
climate change. American Behavioral Scientist, 57, 796—817.
Brewer, P.R., & Ley, B.L. (2013). Whose science do you believe? Explaining trust in sources of scientific
information about the environment. Science Communication, 35, 115—137. DOI:
10.1177/1075547012441691.
Conklin, J. (2006). Dialogue mapping : building shared understanding of wicked problems. Chichester,
England: Wiley.
Giroux, H.A. (2003) Selling out higher education, Policy Futures in Education, 1(1), 179— 311.
James, A. (2009, April 7). Academies of the apocalypse? Business schools have, so far, escaped the
wrath directed against bankers – but should they bear some blame? The Guardian.
Mintzberg, H., Simons, R., & Basu, K., (2002). Beyond selfishness. MIT Sloan Management Review, Fall,
67—74.
References

36. 36
References (cont)
Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M.M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning.
Policy Sciences 4, 155–169. Retrieved from
http://www.uctc.net/mwebber/Rittel+Webber+Dilemmas+General_Theory_of_Pl
anning.pdf
Rowe, D. (2002). Environmental literacy and sustainability as core requirements:
success stories and models. Retrieved from
http://ncseonline.org/efs/DebraRowe.pdf .
Snowden, D.J., & Boone, M.E. (2007). A leader’s framework for decision making.
Harvard Business Review, November, 1—9.
Stamm, K.R., Clark, F., & Eblacas, P.R. (2000). Mass communication and public
understanding of environmental problems: the case of global warming. Public
Understanding of Science, 9, 219–237.
Svanström, M., Lozano-García, F.J., & Rowe, D. (2008). Learning outcomes for
sustainable development in higher education. International Journal of
Sustainability in Higher Education 9(3),339–351.
Unisa. 2010/2012. Curriculum Policy.